Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

> Why operators have no scaling issue allocating a stable IPv4 address to UE but have such an issue when allocating a stable IPv6 prefix to UE? Sure. IPv4 or IPv6, its fundamentally the same issue. May be they will support it in future, or they don¹t want to extend the same for IPv6. This is for

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Le 04/05/2018 à 01:43, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : Well, one can have one own's HA (not cellular network's) to manage the static prefix allocated to the UE, and the cellular network to assign a variable prefix in RA. Sure, but now the discussion is no longer about the IPv6 prefix

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

>> Well, one can have one own's HA (not cellular network's) to manage the >>static prefix allocated to the UE, and the cellular network to assign a >>variable prefix in RA. Sure, but now the discussion is no longer about the IPv6 prefix allocation for the LTE access. You can do this today if you

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Le 03/05/2018 à 15:55, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : It is probably the only reason at this time that makes Mobile IP still necessary. Not really. You will have the same issue with Mobile IP. Static allocation implies the UE’s session is anchored on a gateway node which is the

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

> It is probably the only reason at this time that makes Mobile IP still >necessary. Not really. You will have the same issue with Mobile IP. Static allocation implies the UE’s session is anchored on a gateway node which is the topological anchor for that address block. Unless, the assigned

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Le 02/05/2018 à 16:29, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : I can agree that the possibility with RADIUS/DIAMETER permits to alocate a stable prefix in RA to a UE. However, I have never seen it in practice in a cellular network. Enabling static IP allocation by default has a scaling issue.

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

> I can agree that the possibility with RADIUS/DIAMETER permits to alocate a stable prefix in RA to a UE. However, I have never seen it in practice in a cellular network. Enabling static IP allocation by default has a scaling issue. The IPv6 prefix that is allocated to the UE is part of an

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Le 25/04/2018 à 05:00, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : Hi Alex, I cannot comment on the supported network/service configuration in any operator's network. But, I’d think the allocation of stable /64’s is similar to static IPv4 (/32) address allocations that are supported in many operator

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Hi Alex, I cannot comment on the supported network/service configuration in any operator's network. But, I’d think the allocation of stable /64’s is similar to static IPv4 (/32) address allocations that are supported in many operator networks today. There are also RADIUS / DIAMETER attributes

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Alex: This is a good point. Yes, there is DHCPv6 prefix delegation support in 3GPP architecture for supporting mobile router use-cases. This is essentially for delegating prefixes for the networks attached to the UE. This was introduced in Rel-10 by cisco. I have not followed the recent SA2

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Hi Alex, As you know, I have written a draft that defines an extension to DHCPv6 for supporting OnDemand values (also for SSC modes - Service and Session Continuity) with prefix delegation. I discussed that with SA2 people and they are aware of that possibility. Currently, SA2 prefer the RA

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Le 22/03/2018 à 18:49, Liaison Statement Management Tool a écrit : [...] SA2 would like to point out that among the four mechanisms for address configuration delivery mentioned in your LS reply (i.e. DHCPv4, DHCPv6, IPv6 ND and IKEv2) only the IPv6 ND mechanisms, and in particular the Router

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Yes, in the LS response that we sent to 3GPP on 2/16, we did cite the below work. There are many proposals on this including: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-01.txt https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-moses-dmm-dhcp-ondemand-mobility-08.txt Also, some proposals from the

[DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Title: LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement Submission Date: 2018-03-22 URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1567/ From: Suresh Krishnan To: Sri Gundavelli ,Dapeng Liu